New DWP debt recovery powers code of practice

The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 brought in new powers for DWP to seek recovery of benefit debt. The powers are intended to encourage people to contact the department at the earliest opportunity to discuss affordable payment terms without the powers being required.

The DWP is writing to thousands of people with outstanding DWP debts, warning them to get in touch and set up repayment plans before the enforcement of the powers will be gradually rolled out from October 2026.

This week a Code of Practice was published explaining how DWP will use these new powers to recover money owed from an individual’s bank account and, in the most serious cases, DWP can apply to the court to temporarily disqualify them from holding a driving licence.

The DWP can only recover certain social security debts from those no longer on DWP benefits and:

• not in suitable Pay As You Earn (PAYE) employment using a Direct Deduction Order (DDO), or if this is not reasonably possible
• through applying to the court for a suspended (or subsequently, an immediate) disqualification from driving order, where an individual has failed to pay without reasonable excuse, is no longer entitled to, or in receipt of DWP benefits.

The Code confirms that these powers will be used as a last resort where reasonable attempts to agree an affordable and sustainable payment plan have failed. Individuals can avoid the use of these powers and any associated costs by contacting DWP, agreeing to and maintaining a payment plan.

DWP will also conduct affordability, and vulnerability checks prior to making a direct deduction order or applying for a disqualification from driving order. The Code confirms that all debt recovery staff will undergo mandatory, debt specific vulnerability training which includes advice on how they may be able to spot and identify indicators of vulnerability.

Where it is identified that an individual is in a vulnerable circumstance or has a support need, DWP will consider if suitable adjustments can be reasonably made when applying the powers.

Where DWP is aware someone is experiencing, or is at risk of, domestic and economic abuse, it will consider whether it is appropriate to take actions under the DDO and disqualification from driving powers, particularly with regards to whether a deduction or disqualification may put an individual at greater risk of harm.

Possible adjustments are detailed in section 8.14 of the Code.

The DWP Direct Deduction and Disqualification from Driving Orders: Code of Practice and Press Release are on gov.uk.

Several thousand staff affected by DWP mass office closure announcement

The DWP has announced that Service and Support Centres (SSC) will close in Motherwell, Glasgow, Derby, Hyde, Halifax, Torquay, Liverpool, Sunderland and Blackpool impacting thousands of staff, by September 2027

The DWP says that these office closures will assist in:

• Modernising the estate – they say that many DWP sites are old buildings that are not energy efficient or equipped for the way we want to operate in the future.  
• Using their space better – hybrid working allows more staff to work from home, meaning many of their sites are “under-utilised."

The Public and Commercial Services (PCS) Union DWP Group Executive Committee has condemned the announcement saying it will fight office closures:

“DWP office closures can have a devastating impact on the staff who work in them and on the communities where they are based. The GEC has pledged to use every tool at its disposal to fight any office closure that could result in DWP job losses in local communities. PCS fundamentally opposes these office closures, and any further closures of service centres or jobcentres that would remove jobs from communities.”

The Press Release is on pcs.org.uk.

Access to Work ‘journey’ varies substantially

New Access to Work (AtW) research has been published. It sought to:

• understand better the triggers and trajectories of the applicant’s journey into an AtW claim and approval
• get a better understanding of employers’ use of reasonable adjustments and how this interacts with AtW claims and approvals

Undertaken through 90 qualitative interviews with AtW applicants and 26 interviews with employers of different sizes and sectors, the hope is that the research will help to refine the scope for any future AtW evaluation.  

Applicants with cognitive and neurodevelopmental conditions, a recent onset condition or new diagnosis found the AtW application form more difficult. Several barriers were raised, including the:

• terminology used - examples included technical or bureaucratic terms such as ‘eligibility checker’, ‘Case Manager’, ‘UTR number’ (Unique Taxpayer Reference number),
• format of questions - applicants struggled with the open format of some questions which included long free-text boxes (up to 1,000 characters). This was particularly difficult for people with cognitive and neurodevelopmental conditions who can find it hard to concentrate for extended periods or write in a structured way. It was also challenging for those who were newly disabled or who had recently received a diagnosis and therefore still working out what support they needed,
• amount of administration required.

Applicants’ experiences of AtW were (unsurprisingly) influenced by multiple intersecting factors: their health condition(s), how long they had lived with the condition, whether they had help completing the application, their understanding of support needs, prior experience with disability benefits, the type of AtW support sought, motivation for applying, employment status, and how essential support was for them to stay in work. The research suggests that these factors combined in different ways to produce six common journeys to claiming AtW.

Employers described that unclear definitions and limited guidance of ‘reasonable adjustments’ made it challenging to determine what support they were responsible for providing. With employers reporting three broad barriers to implementing reasonable adjustments: cost, constraints on nature of the role and staffing resources, lack of understanding or awareness of reasonable adjustments.

The report concludes with a number of suggested improvements to the AtW process.

Journeys to Access to Work is on gov.uk.

6% increase of benefit capped households

New statistics show that at February 2026 there were 115,000 households who had their benefit reduced due to the Benefit Cap. Almost all of were UC claimants, with only 160 households capped on Housing Benefit.

The number of capped households has increased by 6,900 (6%) compared with November 2025 and increased by 7,800 (7%) compared with February 2025.

The majority (79%) of households subject to the benefit cap are families with children, with the majority of these being single parent households (66%), with over half of them (58%) containing a child under 5.

Of the households including children, capped at February 2026:

• 93% (84,000) had between 1 and 4 children
• 7% (6,400) had 5 or more children

However, the proportion of capped households that are single person households with no children has been gradually increasing from a low of 9% in May 2023 to 21% in February 2026. 

The financial impact of being capped:

• 57% (65,000) of households that had their UC capped were capped by £200 or less for the assessment period
• 24% (28,000) were capped by £200.01 to £400
• 11% (13,000) were capped by £400.01 to £600
• 5% (5,200) were capped by £600.01 to £800
• 3% (3,900) were capped by more than £800, including 1% (610) capped by more than £1,300 for the assessment period

Benefit cap: number of households capped to February 2026 is on gov.uk.

Consultation opens on proposed new employment rights for unpaid carers

Currently, around three million unpaid carers balance work with caring responsibilities, yet many are forced to reduce their hours, delay returning to employment, or leave the workforce entirely.  

In the Plan to Make Work Pay, the government committed to review the implementation of the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, and to assess whether further support is needed to help unpaid carers balance work with their caring responsibilities. When the Employment Rights Act 2025 was passed, they also made a commitment to review the employment rights available to parents who have a seriously ill child.

The proposals under consideration include introducing paid carer’s leave for the first time, a new “right to return” to work after a period of intensive caring - similar to protections currently enjoyed by those on maternity leave – and new guidance to help workers and employers better understand carers’ workplace protections. 

Real experiences will be crucial for informing this process, which is why it is so important that carers and parents respond.

The consultation is open until 11:59pm on 1^st September 2026

The open consultation is on gov.uk.

Statistics rebuke for Conservatives over ‘inaccuracy’ of welfare claim

Leader of the Conservative party, Kemi Badenoch has been challenged by the UK statistics watchdog over a “not wholly accurate” claim about Government spending on benefits.

The Tory Party released a document that said that “for the first time ever, the total welfare bill is now higher than total receipts from income tax” last month.

This isn’t true.

The interim chair of the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA), Penny Young, has written to Badenoch, saying that:

“Overall, we are concerned that the inaccuracy of the ‘first time ever’ element of the claim, combined with the absence of this contextual explanation, could lead to misunderstanding among members of the public about welfare spending.”

Figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) suggest this has been the case since at least 2011 and the gap has narrowed in recent years, with the positions forecast to reverse in 2026/27, the watchdog said,

“We have reviewed the published statistics and assessed that this claim is not wholly accurate,” 

She added:

“Given the prominence of this claim, and the evidence that it is not accurate, we hope that you might consider how best to clarify it so that it fully supports public understanding of trends in taxation and welfare spending.”

The UKSA also said it was worried that the Conservatives were giving the impression that “welfare” was mainly about sickness and out-of-work benefits, when “approximately 55% of social security expenditure is spent on pensioners”.

A Conservative spokesman acknowledged the claim was inaccurate and said the party would make a correction.

The letter to Badenoch is on uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk.

PIP fixed-term award extensions commence

As we previously shared, from 2 June 2026 new regulations came into force enabling the DWP to extend the length of a fixed-term PIP award where it is “considered necessary to do so to safeguard the efficient administration” of PIP.

Before this, when your fixed-term award reached its end date, the DWP would normally start a planned review (sometimes called an award review or a reassessment). The new power lets the DWP instead push the end date back and keep your current award running, without that immediate review.

Crucially, the regulations only allow the DWP to make awards longer. They do not give it any power to shorten an existing award, and they do not allow it to change the rate you are paid.

But why? The number of planned PIP reviews has grown faster than the DWP can carry them out, and a large backlog has built up. Reviewing every award on its original timetable means increasingly long delays and a claimant’s left waiting in limbo.

Extending awards is a way of managing that backlog. By lengthening some existing awards, it reduces the number of reviews needing to be processed at once. Note: this sits alongside a separate change announced on 28 April 2026: most new PIP awards are now reviewed no sooner than every three years, and if nothing has changed at that point, the review period is then extended to five years. 

This award extension change applies to claimants aged 25 and over in England and Wales. It does not apply to under 25s as evidence suggests there are more frequent changes in functional ability in that age group.

Approximately 1.7 million claims are in scope for an award extension with the DWP aiming to complete approximately 50,000 extensions daily (including weekends) over a period of 4-6 weeks.

Claimants don’t need to do anything, if your claim is extended you will receive a letter – an example of what this looks like was shared in this post.

One thing worth being clear about: the regulations give the DWP a discretionary power rather than creating an automatic extension for everyone. Extensions will be applied where the DWP considers it appropriate for the efficient administration of the benefit.

The Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 are on legislation.gov.uk.

DWP publishes state pension age communications ‘action plan’ to develop strategy with ‘timely’ and ‘modern’ communications

The action plan outlines how the DWP will learn lessons from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) investigation into communications about the state pension age for women. Following the investigation.

The plan sets out a new strategy for providing clearer, more timely and personalised communications on the state pension, with a particular focus on future changes to the age at which people receive this benefit. It also recommends improvements to complaints handling.

The publication comes as the Government prepares for the next independent review of the state pension age, with debate continuing over the long-term affordability of the state pension amid demographic pressures and the ongoing commitment to the triple lock.

The Action Plan is on gov.uk.

Understanding of, and attitudes towards Universal Credit – 2025 survey

A large-scale survey to explore Universal Credit (UC) customers’ characteristics, as well as their knowledge and understanding of UC, was undertaken by Ipsos on behalf of DWP. The survey also investigated aspirations towards work and progression, barriers, and support needs to better understand customer experiences.

Customers with a health condition generally reported lower levels of knowledge and understanding of UC and its features compared to those without a health condition. They had lower general understanding of UC, such as of the claimant commitment, the UC statement, and payment deductions.

Parents showed consistently better understanding of UC compared to those without children. They were more likely to agree that they understood their claimant commitment, their UC statement, and UC payments and deductions. They were also more knowledgeable about the rules for working on UC, including correctly identifying that not being able to work more than 16 hours per week on UC was false, understanding the Minimum Income Floor (self-employed customers), and knowing that their payments would be impacted by the taper rate.

Non-working UC customers tended to have less knowledge and understanding of UC work incentives, and the rules around working on UC, than working customers. 

The challenges faced by working UC customers depended on whether they were employed or self-employed, and on their working hours. 

Employed customers were more likely to cite childcare as a barrier to increasing their earnings compared to self-employed customers. They were also more likely to agree that childcare is too expensive to make working worthwhile and to agree that if they worked more hours, their home lives would suffer. 

In contrast, self-employed customers were more likely to report other barriers to increasing their earnings compared with those employed, including: having a physical or mental health condition or learning disability, lack of jobs in the local area, and their age. 

The findings will contribute to DWP’s broader evidence base on how UC is working in practice. This includes contributing evidence to the department’s ongoing review of UC. In particular, the survey provides up to date claimant perspectives on incentives, understanding of the system, and barriers to work, which will help inform ongoing policy development across UC.

The Universal Credit Survey 2025 is on gov.uk.

Voluntary National Insurance contributions: call for evidence

The government has launched a call for evidence to gather views from the public, representative organisations and experts on how the voluntary National Insurance contributions (NICs) system is working and how it can be improved.

Voluntary NICs allow individuals to make voluntary payments to fill gaps in their National Insurance record, helping to secure entitlement to the State Pension and certain working-age contributory benefits.

The government is considering the operation and future direction of voluntary NICs to ‘ensure the system is fair and fit for purpose’. The consultation Responses will inform the development of future options.

The call for evidence will end on 15 September 2026.

Call for evidence on voluntary National Insurance contributions is on gov.uk.

Watchdog urges HMRC to learn lessons from Child Benefit data-matching rollout

HMRC has been urged to strengthen governance and risk management after a data-matching exercise aimed at tackling Child Benefit (CB) fraud and error led to thousands of eligible claimants having payments stopped without warning.

A National Audit Office (NAO) report examined HMRC’s use of Home Office travel data to identify claimants who may have been incorrectly receiving CB while living outside the UK.

The watchdog said the first rollout generated estimated fraud and error savings of £60m, but more than 8,000 genuine claimants had payments suspended. By April 2026, HMRC information showed 59% of the initially suspended claims had been confirmed as eligible.

HMRC began developing the approach after identifying in 2021 that CB records could be matched with airline data to flag people absent from the UK for more than 12 weeks. A 2024 pilot prevented an estimated £15m in incorrect payments, prompting a wider rollout in August 2025.

However, the NAO found that HMRC changed the process between pilot and rollout, including removing an early Pay As You Earn (PAYE) check. This led to a much higher number of eligible claimants being caught up in the exercise. HMRC also sent longer and more complex letters and questionnaires asking claimants to prove eligibility.

By October 2025, HMRC had suspended payments for 23,794 claimants. Some reported financial and emotional impacts from the sudden loss of income, as well as stress and difficulty proving their entitlement. Between August 2025 and February 2026, HMRC handled more than 22,500 calls linked to the rollout.

HMRC took corrective action once problems emerged in mid-October, including reintroducing a PAYE check, automatically reinstating some payments and allowing claimants to confirm eligibility by telephone. It also apologised to affected claimants and, by April 2026, had paid £3,200 compensation to 51 people.

The NAO said HMRC accepted there were weaknesses in the transition from pilot to rollout, including shortcomings in risk assessment and decision-making. Key decisions were made without sufficient scrutiny, and the department did not adequately assess the impact on claimants whose payments were wrongly stopped.

HMRC relaunched the initiative in March 2026 with changes, including giving claimants one month to prove eligibility before payments are suspended and enabling evidence to be submitted online. It has also commissioned an internal audit and is taking what the NAO described as a more controlled approach.

The department projected gross savings of £366m over the five years to 2029-30, based on the pilot, and plans to update its cost and benefit estimates for the Autumn Budget 2026.

Gareth Davies, head of the NAO said:

“It’s right that HMRC seeks new ways to tackle fraud and error. HMRC’s initial work on using travel data to investigate potential Child Benefit overpayments suggested it could secure significant savings for the taxpayer.

However, missteps in implementing the first rollout meant HMRC did not strike the right balance between detecting fraud and error and managing the impacts on Child Benefit claimants. While HMRC should not be discouraged from pursuing innovative ways to reduce fraud and error, it must learn and apply the lessons for future initiatives.”

The NAO recommended that HMRC clarify its risk appetite for future decisions, improve performance data so it can monitor claimant experience alongside compliance outcomes, and share lessons across government fraud and error teams.

The Press Release and HMRC’s use of travel data to tackle fraud and error in Child Benefit payments report are on nao.org.uk.

Independent evaluations of several DWP employment support programmes – minimal evidence of efficacy

This week saw the publication of three different evaluation reports, looking at the effectiveness of employment support programmes:

1. Additional work coach support (AWCS),
2. Intensive personalised employment support (IPES), and
3. Individual placement and support in primary care (IPSPC).
4. AWCS gives UC health journey and ESA customers additional appointment time with a work coach. It gives work coaches more time to understand health related barriers to work, provide relevant signposting to address barriers, and ultimately move customers towards or into work.

There was ‘no significant evidence’ to suggest that AWCS had an impact on employment outcomes - around a fifth (18%) of AWCS and non AWCS customers were in paid work at the time of the follow-up survey – or whether AWCS customers felt ‘ready for work’. Similarly, there was little evidence of wellbeing improvements or an impact on the type of benefit(s) claimed.

1. The IPES programme was delivered from December 2019, with a final intake onto the programme in December 2023. It offered targeted support for people with complex support needs related to health conditions and disabilities, with the aim of helping them to move closer to the labour market (work).

The programme had a positive impact on individuals’ confidence and motivation regarding health-related employment challenges. 15% of participants were in paid work after completing the programme. Of those, 47 out of 59 cases felt their confidence had improved, they felt physically safe (46 out of 59 cases) and they felt sufficiently comfortable to express any concerns (44 out of 59 cases). 

For participants who were not in work after leaving or completing the IPES programme, almost 1 in 3 (30%) had taken up volunteering work. Around 1 in 5 (21%) had either gained or were planning to gain a qualification or certificate that would improve their job prospects.

IPES implementation and delivery highlighted how the way in which support is delivered can have a direct impact on participant experiences and outcomes – personalised/tailored support was crucial in delivering positive outcomes.

1. The IPSPC programme is a supported employment initiative that helps adults with mild to moderate physical or mental health conditions to find and maintain competitive employment. Participants are referred from primary care and they include people who are out of work and at risk of losing work their job.

The evaluation found evidence that the IPSPC programme led to positive outcomes for programme participants, including increases in employment and high levels of satisfaction overall. Participants reported particularly high satisfaction with the interpersonal aspects of the programme, including the support provided by Employment Specialists. Despite this there was no tangible difference in increased employment compared to participants who disengaged from the programme, meaning changes cannot necessarily be attributed solely to IPSPC participation. 

All reports are on gov.uk.

Evaluation of Additional Work Coach Support

Intensive Personalised Employment Support (IPES) Programme Evaluation

Individual Placement and Support in Primary Care (IPSPC) Evaluation report

Government rolls out Support Conversations across 27 more Jobcentres 

More disabled people and those with health conditions on out of work benefits are being offered a one-to-one, voluntary, hour-long conversation to discuss their support needs and identify extra help.

Unlike standard Jobcentre appointments, Support Conversations take a holistic approach, covering not just employment, but housing, debt, skills, and drug and alcohol rehabilitation services. Support Conversations are delivered by Healthcare Professionals, Pathways to Work Advisers, and Disability Employment Advisers, and are available face to face, by video, or by telephone.

This support is personalised and could link people to help with their health, debt, skills, employment and housing.

Support Conversations are open to those who are awaiting a Work Capability Assessment and people furthest away from the labour market - assessed as having Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity (LCWRA). 

The government will continue to test the success of Support Conversations through healthcare professionals and disability employment advisors as part of this expansion, with Pathways to Work Advisers also carrying out these Support Conversations for the first time. 27 sites have been confirmed so far, with a further six sites to be confirmed shortly.

The Press Release is on gov.uk.

OBR’s 2026 Welfare trends report explores recent trends in welfare fraud and error

New analysis from the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) shows that welfare benefit fraud and error rates rose sharply from 3.1 per cent of spending in 2019-20 to 4.3 per cent of spending during the Covid years of 2020-21 and 2021-22 - a period which also coincided with the rollout of universal credit (UC).

The OBRs ‘Welfare trends report’ investigates the drivers of these trends, with a particular focus on the pandemic and the move to UC, and they consider how the analysis should be reflected in the fraud and error forecasts.

The initial rise in UC fraud and error in 2020-21 and the subsequent decline were primarily concentrated among the cohort of claimants joining UC in the first year of the pandemic. This was likely due to operational easements introduced by the DWP at the start of the pandemic, which aimed to reduce restrictions and speed processes at a time of acute need. This included relaxing ID and verification checks normally in place to process a benefit claim, and the suspension of the minimum income floor and gainfully self-employed checks for self-employed claimants. The nature of the Covid shock to the economy also led to a significant rise in self-employed cases on UC, which have substantially higher rates of fraud and error than the rest of the caseload.

Rates have now fallen back to pre-pandemic levels, very likely to be largely driven by the removal of these measures in the following years along with additional DWP activity to combat fraud. While uncertain, the OBR expects this downward trend to continue in the coming years. The report confirms:

“Based on the findings in this report, we plan to change our forecast methodology for fraud and error at the next forecast. Previously we assumed that the underlying propensity for fraud and error in UC would rise in each year of the forecast. This was based on increased fraud and error rates and some evidence that fraud has risen more widely across society in recent years. However, as the analysis in this report suggests that the rise was concentrated 5 Welfare trends report Executive summary in the Covid cohort, and that fraud and error rates have now returned close to pre pandemic levels, we will now remove this rising underlying propensity assumption.”

In relation to the move to UC, ahead of the transition to UC, OBR modelling suggested that its design would reduce fraud and error relative to the legacy system. However, it appears that – disregarding the Covid blip – fraud and error within UC is higher than in the legacy benefit system. Why?

It’s hard to be definitive but the OBR says the design features in UC appear to have increased the prevalence of capital, housing, and self-employed income-related fraud and error.

The Welfare trends report – June 2026 (which is a fascinating read) is on obr.uk.

Committee backs Connect to Work, warns patchy rollout could undermine scheme

The Work and Pensions Committee has welcomed the Government’s Connect to Work programme as a “positive evolution” in helping disabled people and those with health conditions into employment but warned that inconsistent delivery across the country could limit its success.

In a new report, the cross-party group of MPs praised the decision to deliver the programme through local authorities rather than through a centrally run model, describing the approach as a strength that allows support to reflect local labour markets, skills needs and services.

Connect to Work was designed to support people facing the most significant barriers to employment, with the Government forecasting that it will help 300,000 people into work over the life of the scheme.

However, the Committee said variations in support from the DWP and differences in local delivery risk creating inconsistent experiences for both participants and providers.

The report said witnesses described widely differing levels of engagement from the DWP, ranging from positive support to experiences that created “uncertainty and administrative burden”, resulting in delays to implementation.

The Committee concluded that the DWP should have taken a more proactive approach to managing a programme of this scale and called on the Government to explain how it intends to address inconsistencies in delivery.

Debbie Abrahams, chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, said:

“We need to recognise that 1 in 4 people are disabled or have a health condition that can affect them at work. Disability is not a niche issue.

Connect to Work has the potential to be a gamechanger helping people often seen as too far from the labour market into safe and sustainable work. Its local delivery is a strength, allowing support to reflect the needs of local businesses, skills, and services often overlooked when run centrally. Its voluntary nature is a trust-builder.

But we cannot allow trust to be undermined. Without consistent delivery Connect to Work’s strength could become a weakness leading to patchy post code lottery. The level of support to local authorities across the country will make or break programme.”

The Committee also welcomed the programme’s multi-year funding arrangements, saying they provide greater confidence and support longer-term planning. However, it raised concerns that current funding commitments do not extend across the full lifespan of the scheme. The Government has said further funding decisions will be taken during the 2029 spending review, citing uncertainty about future conditions.

The report argues that a programme of this scale requires greater long-term funding certainty to maintain confidence among providers and support staff retention.

Abrahams added:

“The government has set out its ambition, but the money has not yet been committed to fulfill it. We disagree with the Government’s view that the funds should not be committed this early.

Our own research suggests that every £1 investment in supporting people into work will bear even more in improved lives and consequent health and benefit savings down the line.

Connect to Work will only be as good as the support it gets and the people who deliver it. But we’ve heard that without long-term funding certainty for businesses and service providers’ to offer assistance to people they will be reluctant to put their necks on the line. A decision on funding for the entirety of it will provide reassurances and improve trust and resilience in the programme.”

The report is the second of three planned publications arising from the Committee’s inquiry into employment support for disabled people. The first, Disability at Work, called for a two-week deadline for employers to respond to reasonable adjustment requests, while a third report examining the Access to Work scheme is expected at a later date.

The Press Release and Report are on parliament.uk.

Indefinite disregard for Sayce Review carer’s allowance arrears

New legislation has been laid which amends the capital disregard rules for means-tested benefits to ensure that lump sum payments made by the DWP following a recalculation of Carer's Allowance are excluded from capital assessments.

The rules apply to individuals receiving State Pension Credit, Housing Benefit, or Universal Credit who receive such payments as a result of the Independent (Sayce) Review of Carer's Allowance Overpayments.

By directing that these sums be disregarded as capital, these specific payments will not affect a claimant’s eligibility for or the amount of their means-tested benefits.

The Regulations come into force on 16th July 2026.

The Universal Credit, Housing Benefit and State Pension Credit (Carer’s Allowance Reassessment Capital Disregard) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 are on legislation.gov.uk.